Anti-aircraft warfare began by adapting machine guns and artillery pieces to engage military aircraft from the ground. Adaptations of ground weapons used before and during World War I and the increased use of tactical aircraft led to more specialized anti-aircraft guns being developed during the World War II era. Since then guided missiles have replaced many traditional anti-aircraft weapons. However, anti-aircraft weapons are still used throughout the world in smaller countries that are unable to deploy sophisticated guided missile systems.
Even though anti-aircraft weapons are still used extensively throughout the world, they still suffer from a number of disadvantages, shortcomings and limitations, particularly the belt fed anti-aircraft machine guns (0.30-0.50 cal). These types of anti-aircraft weapons engage targets while mounted mainly on ground vehicles. In such cases when the user engages oncoming targets from the air, the anti-aircraft weapon usually elevates the barrel as the target gets closer, but current anti-aircraft guns cannot readily follow an oncoming, rapid, head-on target flying directly over the anti-aircraft site. FIGS. 1A and 1B illustrate the head-on, overhead target problem with prior art anti-aircraft weapons.
FIG. 1A shows a prior art anti-aircraft weapon aimed at the quickly-moving target with the barrel at an almost horizontal angle. At a certain point, the anti-aircraft weapon can no longer be easily elevated due to the configuration of the mount. The anti-aircraft weapon must traverse the barrel to the rear before it can engage the target flying directly over and behind the gun site. These types of mount limitations prevent the user from continuously engaging any on-coming, rapid, head-on, fly-over target. FIG. 1B shows the rapid, head-on, fly-over target that has flown past the prior art anti-aircraft weapon. FIG. 1B illustrates this problem by showing that the anti-aircraft weapon is no longer in a position to fire at the rapid, head-on, fly-over target until the anti-aircraft weapon, and possibly its platform, have been re-positioned to follow and engage the target.
Movement of the anti-aircraft weapon after fly-over causes an additional prior art problem, which is clearly illustrated in FIG. 2. Referring now to FIG. 2, the anti-aircraft weapon is shown after weapon rotation in pursuit of the rapid, head-on, fly-over overhead target with a twisted and tangled ammunition belt. Even if the mount for the prior art anti-aircraft weapon was designed to allow the weapon to elevate to the rear, the ammunition belt would still twist, tangle, and jam because the location of the ammunition box relative to the weapon feed is not mechanically compatible. The twisted and tangled ammunition belt causes the anti-aircraft weapon to jam and misfire, which exposes the anti-aircraft crew and the entire defensive position to the life-threatening hazards and dangers of hostile enemy action. Thus, there has been a long-felt need for an anti-aircraft weapon that can be rapidly re-positioned in such a way as to follow the target directly over the weapon after fly-over with an ammunition box mechanism that will not twist, tangle and jam after following the fly-over target.
None of the currently available anti-aircraft weapons allow the user to engage the rapid, head-on, fly-over target in a way that does not impede the operation of the ammunition belt and also avoids the other disadvantages, shortcomings and limitations of prior art devices.